RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts/and then analyzing them

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

OK.

Maybe I should step in here, because it was my idea to do the RFI
approach as opposed to a survey.

All, I proposed an RFI precisely to avoid all of the problems that have
been talked about in the e-mails.  The point now is NOT for a survey.
They point is to throw out an RFI in hopes of getting all sides of the
story in free form.  Hopefully to get submissions of white papers,
points of view, registry and registrar stats, etc.

This is NO different than what many governments do to study an issue
when they are just starting out.  It is what happened initially when the
US government put out the "Green Paper" before the White Paper.....  Its
what is supposed to happen when an issue starts out.

At this stage, we are trying specifically to NOT create questions to get
meaningful statistics.  In other words, we will not (at least if I can
help it) be stating that X% of those responding said that tasting was a
good or bad idea.  We are trying to get everyone's viewpoint so that we
have a place to start.

Again, I want to repeat.  This is NOT a survey.  This is a Request for
Information.  Anyone can submit anything they would like for the ad hoc
group to consider.  We are not trying to create biased questions, but
rather focus the comments on specified areas.  

I have not fully reviewed the questions, but that is the intent.

I guess for a final time I will state that this is NOT intended to be a
survey.

I would be happy to discuss further with the group on the call this
week.  

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 9:09 AM
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts/and then analyzing them

Apologies for posting again, but I wanted to ask an important question
of
the group, and the ICANN staff. As you are designing survey
questions/questionnaire(s), how are you designing the analyses phase of
the
work? 

I co-chaired the initial WHOIS Task Force at ICANN; we did an extensive
study, with just over 3000 returns. In designing a survey, it is very
important to understand how the data will be analyzed, and by whom, and
by
what process. The survey instrument used for that survey was both
statistical, and analytical in nature, but had a free form answer as
well.
We learned a great deal from the survey, and obtained some excellent
insights into the views of different participants about their concerns
about
WHOIS.  Glen and Tony Harris in particular will remember the extensive
hours
of analysis, discussion, debate, to examine the over 3000 returned
questionnaires.

We developed a standardized set of criteria by which we would try to
group
the responses, and the TF members spent weeks undertaking reading and
sorting responses into 'categories'. We were helped considerably by
Thomas
Roessler, Katie McGee, Tim Denton, and one or two other key members who
devoted extensive time to helping to undertake statistical analysis and
ways
to present the data findings as well. 

I have done many polls, many surveys, and many questionnaires--well,
okay,
retained experts to do the above. While there is some expertise in the
ad
hoc group, probably important to consider whether enough discussion has
occurred about how the results will be analyzed, and by whom. 

Very important to design the analysis process -- NOT the outcome -- BUT
the
process, before distributing the surveys. That both means to whom the
responses come in, but how the data will be treated. Is any of it
confidential? If so, why? Will all surveys be published? If not, what
happens to them? Who analyzes them? what process is there, if they are
confidential, for checking the validity of the analyses, and so on. 

Perhaps some of the lessons learned from the experience of that survey
might
be useful in this upcoming process. 

Best regards, 

Marilyn Cade
Observer 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 12:11 AM
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Collecting Facts

Hello Mike,

> 
> Bruce, thanks.  I have discussed with Olof and he will engage ICANN
> Staff in hopes of gathering data along these lines.  Others 
> on the list
> have already begun some work in regards to your scenarios #2 
> and #3, at
> least, but you lay out very specific data that seem achievable and
> certainly would be useful.  
> 

Note that I suggest data be collected in such a way as that it is
statistically significant - rather than a series of individual cases.

Ie I am sure there are examples where a name used for tasting violates a
trademark - the question is how often.  Likewise there would certainly
be examples where a registrant cannot obtain their desired name as the
name is currently being tasted and subsequently deleted several days
later.

The benefit of examples is that it gives you a pattern that you can then
use to do statistical analysis.  It is the next step that is usually not
taken in the GNSO policy debates.  We have seen this in the WHOIS debate
where both sides of the debate provide examples, but there has been
little (apart from the work done by SSAC) statistical analysis to
identify the size of the problem.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin